ShaunR

SQLite does not support concurrent writes.

That's because it is, to all intents and purposes, an internal restructuring (possibly a political one) and the outward effects aren't tangible or possibly even unknown.

this is a little ambiguous. Header Type Length Report ID Data Check Sum...Makes sense if you put commas in the right place Header Type, Length, Report ID, Data, Check Sum. If that was the case then a msg with no data would be something like 7E 03 02 18 9B Is this your interpretation or is it stated as such? Usually a checksum is a CRC. if it is a CRC-8 (there are a number of 1 byte CRCs) then the last value would be 0x29 rather than 0x9B, for example.

I haven't seen that error message for years. If I run a debugger, LabVIEW just dies and the debugger reports an error in the LabVIEw exe. This has been the same through Windows 7-10 on the various machines I've had over the years. Maybe the difference when debugging is because I use the the gdb debugger but the sudden disappearance is consistent; not only on my machines but customers' too.

No need. I will explore this. From experience; a misconfigured CLFN usually results in LabVIEW disappearing without a whimper (either immediately or at some random moment) so i don't see much of a reason to have error checking and wrappers enabled at all. Especially if there is a performance benfit, no matter how minute. It doesn't seem to have a scripting counterpart. Is that correct, or have I just missed it? Is the setting sticky, or does distributed source code require the INI setting too?

Interesting. How does this feature compare with disabling the error checking on the Error Checking tab?

Oh. Sorry. Missed that bit. That's a different kettle of kippers then.

it clearly states that LV 2015 isn't supported and says to forward save it to 2017. It's not really a useful test for it's conversion capabilities.

Your argument is inconsistent. If it's not a priority then making a change to remove it is allocating resource to "the least important". Leaving it in would be the least impactful. However. If you are going to change it then you might as well make it a "Preference" since that is clearly what it is. You don't seem to have a preference or, at least, are indifferent. So why advocate taking away a feature that other people obviously feel strongly about?

Just make it an ini/preference setting. The main tenor of that thread seems to be "I'm not very precise so please remove it" which, from that low point, then devolves into "my work-flow is better than your work-flow".

I've never used the toolkit; I'm just aware of it. I don't know of the limitations or capabilities outside of that page. I would suggest sending them an email explaining what you plan to do and they should be able to tell you.

150 samples @ 50ms is about 24K/s if the samples are double precision. The default TCPIP buffer in Windows is 8K IIRC and if NAGLE is on, you maybe filling the buffer too quickly. I would try U8, if you are currently using doubles, to reduce the data amount and see if the problem perists. If it resolves it, then I would try turning off NAGLE and increasing the buffer to 65K to use doubles again.

How about the Arduino™ Compatible Compiler for LabVIEW

There is a LabVIEW RIO Evaluation Kit which is a fraction of the cost (has FPGA on board). Alternatively you could use the Arduino with Websockets or HTTP and use LabVIEW to communicate with it. There is also an Arduino toolkit, IIRC.

You have to be logged in to see the SQLite software. The main performance criteria for SQLite is the number of rows and/or columns returned/inserted, although there have been significant improvements in recent versions (~15% over 5 years). If you look at the performance graphs, you will see that 0.6 seconds equates to about 450k rows (with 2 columns). The performance test in the Sqlite API for LabVIEW library is based on 10k rows so that you can get repeatable figures and that typically yields 10s of milliseconds. Less than that, and LabVIEW timings become dominant for the purpose of that